Non-Credit Entrepreneurship Education in Community Colleges: The National Perspective

Transcription

1 Non-Credit Entrepreneurship Education in Community Colleges: The National Perspective Rozana Carducci Shannon Calderone Kyle McJunkin Arthur M. Cohen Robert Hayes UCLA Community College Studies September 2005 Project Contact Information UCLA Community College Studies 3127 Moore Hall, Box Los Angeles, CA (310)

2 Executive Summary This report summarizes findings from a national survey of non-credit entrepreneurship and small business management education in American community colleges. Specifically, the project seeks to identify and document current best practices with respect to non-credit entrepreneurship and small business management education and to provide community colleges with a benchmark for assessing their own progress in meeting established program objectives. The survey findings also provide community colleges, their communities, responsible state agencies, and other sources of funding with criteria by which to evaluate the performance of community colleges in non-credit entrepreneurship education. A brief review of relevant entrepreneurship education scholarship is presented along with a detailed description of the survey methodology and research sample (the survey instrument is included in the report appendix). Drawing upon data collected from 227 participating community colleges, the research findings presented in this report address the following dimensions of noncredit community college entrepreneurship training: program content and format, administration and funding, faculty characteristics, student enrollment, and program assessment. Key research findings discussed in the report include: 71% of respondents offer non-credit entrepreneurship or small business management education A survey of non-respondents resulted in the estimation that 53% of non-respondent community colleges offer some form of non-credit entrepreneurship education with a ninety-five percent confidence range of 37% to 69% 76% of participating institutions offer both non-credit entrepreneurship and small business management education 76% of survey participants report offering both credit and non-credit entrepreneurship training 2

3 44% of institutions house non-credit entrepreneurship education within continuing, community, and adult education administrative units General college budget, student tuition/fees, and state allocations represent the three most prominent forms of financial support for non-credit entrepreneurship education Stand-alone workshops, continuing education courses, and workshop series are the three most common non-credit entrepreneurship education formats with 49% of survey respondents reporting the use of four or more different program formats Lecture, guest speakers, and group work topped the list of non-credit entrepreneurship instructional methods while business plan development, market analysis reports and personal development exercises were the three most frequently employed learning activities The majority of participating institutions (60%) enrolled less than 200 non-credit entrepreneurship students Only 35% of participating institutions report offering non-credit entrepreneurship programs that target specific demographic groups (e.g., women, racial groups, dislocated workers) The majority of institutions rely on adjunct faculty to provide non-credit entrepreneurship training and over 90% of these instructors possess prior entrepreneurial and small business management experience Slightly more than half of participating institutions reported development of a written statement of non-credit entrepreneurship goals, outcomes, or program evaluation criteria The majority of institutions (56%) conduct evaluations at the end of each course or program while only 12% utilize alumni surveys and 18% analyze economic data to gather assessment data beyond program completion These empirical findings, elaborated upon in the full report, confirm and extend previous scholarship on community college entrepreneurship education. Consistent with Hagan s (2004) assertion that over 60% of American community colleges offer credit-bearing entrepreneurship training, the results of this study also reflect extensive community college involvement in the promotion of economic and workforce development via non-credit entrepreneurship and small business management education. The impressive breadth and depth of non-credit community college entrepreneurship training is underscored by survey data which illustrate the diverse range 3

4 of educational topics, instructional methods, learning activities, and institutional resources integrated into comprehensive educational programs capable of meeting the diverse informational and pedagogical needs of community college continuing education students. Additional insights gleaned from this report include the collaborative nature of non-credit community college entrepreneurship education (as evidenced by the diverse range of external funding sources and formal partnerships reported by participating institutions) and the continued need for assessment practices that effectively measure student learning and program outcomes. The report concludes with a discussion of additional research topics (e.g., the nature and scope of collaboration between non-credit and for-credit entrepreneurship initiatives, external resource development strategies, and innovative assessment practices that measure long-term program outcomes) that warrant further investigation in the interest of advancing our knowledge of the important role American community colleges play in cultivating and sustaining entrepreneurial activity. 4

5 Introduction This report summarizes findings from a national survey of non-credit entrepreneurship and small business management education in American community colleges. Specifically, the project seeks to identify and document current best practices with respect to non-credit entrepreneurship and small business management education and to provide community colleges with a benchmark for assessing their own progress in meeting established program objectives. The survey findings also provide community colleges, their communities, responsible state agencies, and other sources of funding with criteria by which to evaluate the performance of community colleges in non-credit entrepreneurship education. The significance of community college entrepreneurship and small business management education is evident in statistics on the prominent role American entrepreneurial enterprises and small businesses play in the promotion of local, regional, and national economic growth. A review of national census, commerce, and labor data reveals that America s 23 million small businesses represent 99.7% of all employer firms, employ over half of all private workers, account for 50% of the private sector output, and generate 60 to 80% of net new jobs annually in the U.S. (United States Chamber of Commerce, 2005). In addition, the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM), a collaborative research initiative between Babson College and London Business School, has documented a strong correlation between national entrepreneurial activity and economic growth as well as a strong relationship among entrepreneurship, education, and job creation. Specifically, GEM findings reveal that 30% of entrepreneurs with less than a secondary education expect to remain self-employed over the next five years, while 35% of the most highly educated entrepreneurs expect to employ 20 or more individuals (Neck, Zacharakis, Bygrav, & Reynolds, 2003, p. 6). Despite the abundance of statistics confirming the economic 5

6 growth associated with entrepreneurialism, additional scholarship is needed to expand our understanding of the role entrepreneurship and small business management education play in cultivating and sustaining entrepreneurial activity. Although a number of scholars have conducted survey research of for-credit entrepreneurial education programs sponsored by four-year colleges and universities (Solomon, Duffy, and Tarabishy, 2002; Vesper & Gartner, 2002), relatively few researchers have systematically examined entrepreneurship and small business management education within the community college sector a surprising oversight given the prominence of economic expansion, community education, and workforce development among the multiple missions of American community colleges. The role of community colleges in entrepreneurship education is especially significant because of their place in the national educational system. By their very nature, the colleges are tied to the local community that they serve. Their students come from that community; many of them are part time students and they work in that community; they will very probably make their future life in that community. The businesses in the community look to the community college to provide their educated workforce; they frequently provide adjunct faculty for the community college; they provide workplaces for the students while they are attending the community colleges; they will very likely hire the graduates from their colleges. Thus, community colleges must be both pragmatic and directed to the immediate needs in training the labor force for work in the community. All of this makes the community college an ideal context in which to develop educational programs to create entrepreneurs. Indeed, many community colleges are already engaged in entrepreneurship education as evidenced by Hagan s (2004) assertion that 60% of American community colleges currently offer at least one creditbearing course in small business management or entrepreneurship. What is missing from the 6

7 extant literature on community college entrepreneurship education, however, is a comprehensive review of non-credit entrepreneurial offerings. A 1994 report prepared by the Center for the Study of Community Colleges asserted that the majority of community college entrepreneurial training was offered as non-credit continuing education. Basing this assertion primarily upon a review of relevant literature and a limited survey of 40 urban community colleges, the authors of the 1994 report called for additional empirical research to examine the format, content, and administrative resources of community college non-credit entrepreneurship education. Unfortunately, this call has remained unanswered. In addition to beginning to fill this gap in the literature on non-credit community college entrepreneurial education, the survey data presented in this report also provides valuable insights on the scope and function of external partnerships and assessment activities, two aspects of entrepreneurship education that have received relatively little attention in previous survey research. Prior to presenting the findings from our survey of non-credit community college entrepreneurship and small business management education, we synthesize relevant entrepreneurship education research as well as provide a detailed introduction to the survey instrument and sampling procedures that frame this study. Relevant Literature The proliferation of postsecondary entrepreneurship and small business management education offerings has been well documented in a diverse collection of scholarly articles and research reports published by numerous education, business, civic, and philanthropic organizations (Katz, 2003; Kauffman Center for Entrepreneurial Leadership, 2001; Kuratko, 2003; Solomon, Duffy, & Tarabishy, 2002). In order to establish a context for the findings presented in this study on the current status of community college non-credit entrepreneurship 7

8 education, we will briefly review the major themes and key findings of previous entrepreneurship education scholarship. We begin this literature review with a discussion of postsecondary entrepreneurship education research conducted on a national scale and then synthesize the rather limited body of scholarly work focused on entrepreneurship and small business management education in the community college context. The National Perspective In order to better understand the contemporary status and future trajectory of American entrepreneurship education, it is important to explore the historical roots of this rapidly evolving academic discipline. In 2003 Jerome Katz published a comprehensive chronology of American entrepreneurship education that begins with the 1876 publication of Francis Walker s The Wages Question, the first major work by an American university academic considering the entrepreneur (p. 286). Developed from a review of primary and secondary historical source documents, examinations of entrepreneurship program websites, and discussions with numerous entrepreneurship scholars, Katz s chronology provides valuable insight on three distinct dimensions of entrepreneurship education growth: courses, infrastructure elements (e.g., endowed positions), and publications. After examining the 100+-item chronology and reviewing trends in course development, endowment growth, and the proliferation of entrepreneurship journals and textbooks (the number of entrepreneurship journals has doubled every three years on average), Katz (2003) asserts two primary findings with implications for the future. The first is that American entrepreneurship education has reached maturity as evidenced by the emergence of widely recognized and consistent approaches in curricular content and pedagogy, disciplinary specialization (e.g., hightechnology and economic development), and external legitimization of the discipline (for 8

9 example, US News and World Report national rankings) (p ). Katz s second major finding concerns the growth of entrepreneurship education beyond American business schools. Katz notes, Entrepreneurship offerings continue to grow in schools of agriculture, engineering, the learned professions, and arts and sciences, usually with minimal or no involvement by business school entrepreneurship faculty (p. 295). Building upon the historical scaffolding of the chronology, Katz concludes the article with insights into the challenges entrepreneurship education will face in the 21 st century. These problems include: 1) a publication glut with too many journals chasing too few good papers (p. 295), 2) avoiding the stagnation that frequently accompanies complacency and success, and 3) a narrow entrepreneurship faculty pipeline stemming from a lack of PhD programs preparing future faculty. Despite these challenges, Katz asserts, the good news is that entrepreneurship education is certain to continue as a major and growing academic discipline worldwide. There are too many academics, too much established infrastructure, and too much demand from students, firms, and governments to let entrepreneurship fall into disuse or disarray (p. 298). The growth and maturity of American entrepreneurship education captured in Katz s comprehensive chronology is reinforced by the findings of two other national surveys of American entrepreneurship education discussed below. In 1986, Rob Dainow published the results of an entrepreneurship education literature survey of articles published between 1974 and The purpose of this research was to "assess the current state of the art, based on published articles, with a view to identifying the strengths and weaknesses that can guide future efforts" (p. 10). After reviewing the literature, Dainow identified "a need for more systematic collection and analysis of data, and more varied methodologies to build a stronger empirical base" (p. 18). In the interest of building on Dainow's work through an examination of more recent entrepreneurship education literature, Gorman, 9

10 Hanlon, and King (1997) surveyed articles published from The authors identified 92 articles published in seven leading academic journals specializing in entrepreneurship and small business management and then categorized the papers along three distinct dimensions: 1) theoretical or descriptive, 2) target market (e.g., student enrolled in the formal educational system, existing business owners), and 3) content (e.g., entrepreneurial propensity, pre-startup, post-startup). After carefully analyzing the selected articles, Gorman, Hanlon, and King identified several major themes that connect contemporary entrepreneurship education scholarship. First, the authors articulated a "need to distinguish among entrepreneurship, enterprise and small business management education and to differentiate each of these from traditional approaches to management education" (p. 18). According to the authors, this theme was particularly prominent in articles on entrepreneurship teaching strategies and curricular content. In contrast to the interdisciplinary findings highlighted in Katz s (2003) entrepreneurship education chronology, a lack of multidisciplinary approaches in entrepreneurship education was a second major theme to emerge from the Gorman, Hanlon, and King literature review. The authors reported, only three of the twenty nine theoretical articles drew on fields other than business (p. 18). This disparity in research findings may be a function of the journals reviewed by Gorman, Hanlon, and King. Additional findings discussed by Gorman, Hanlon, and King (1997) included: 1) an emerging consensus that entrepreneurship can be taught and entrepreneurial attributes fostered through educational programming, 2) a demonstrated growth in entrepreneurship courses and programs coupled with a lack of constancy in approach, and 3) the presence of strong evidence to support the assertion that business owners and managers were often reluctant to participate in entrepreneurship training programs. The authors concluded the literature survey with 10

11 recommendations for future areas of investigation that centered on measuring the impact and effectiveness of comprehensive entrepreneurship education programs rather than continuing to focus on assessing the outcomes associated with completion of a single entrepreneurship course. The National Survey of Entrepreneurship Education conducted by George Washington University and sponsored by the Kauffman Center for Entrepreneurial Leadership (Solomon, Duffy, and Tarabishy, 2002) is the third and final national entrepreneurship education study reviewed in this report. Based on survey data collected from 240 institutions (13% of which were two-year colleges), Solomon, Duffy, and Tarabishy report that in comparison to previous national surveys, the survey revealed modest growth in entrepreneurship education courses and degree programs as well as external funding for entrepreneurship education chairs, professorships, and centers. The survey findings, disaggregated by institutional type (2-year, 4-year, and international universities), offer insight on the nature and scope of entrepreneurship programs (courses vs. degrees), popular pedagogical methods, educational technology usage, and outreach initiatives (e.g., continuing education opportunities, elementary school programs, alumni tracking). Across institutional type, the three most popular entrepreneurship education course topics were small business management, entrepreneurship, and new venture creation. Case studies, business plan creation, and discussions topped the list of in-class instructional methods employed by community colleges while internships, on-site business visits, and small business consulting were the three most popular external classroom pedagogical methods. The bulk of the report s discussion, however, focused on surprising findings related to the limited use of educational technology in contemporary entrepreneurship education. Survey results indicate that while 52% of participants incorporate required web-based assignments in their entrepreneurship curriculum, only 30% provide students and entrepreneurs 11

12 with on-line management and technical assistance and only 21% of participating institutions use distance-learning technologies in entrepreneurship education. Solomon, Duffy, and Tarabishy assert, Given the tremendous growth in personal, business, and academic technology, one might assume that a higher percentage of entrepreneurship educators would have adopted and used various educational technology tools such as the Internet, online chat rooms and distance learning (p. 8). The researchers warn that a failure to quickly integrate technological advances into entrepreneurship education curricula will prevent the field from remaining on the cutting edge and adequately preparing students to meet the demands of entrepreneurship and business management in the 21 st century. Entrepreneurship Education in the Community Colleges Despite the fact that the National Survey of Entrepreneurship Education does include community college program data, the small number of community colleges participating in this survey (n=31) offers a rather limited portrait of community college entrepreneurship education. We conclude this literature review with a discussion of entrepreneurship education research explicitly situated within the context of American community colleges. Although this body of scholarship is rather limited in comparison to the breadth and depth of the research carried out in four-year college and university settings, a number of scholars have studied the growth and development of community college entrepreneurship and small business management course offerings. Two of the most comprehensive and informative studies are discussed below. In 1994, the Center for the Study of Community Colleges submitted a report to the Kauffman Foundation Center for Entrepreneurial Leadership entitled, Entrepreneurship Training in American Community Colleges. This report, prepared in support of U.S. Senate Bill 862 (a 12

13 bill that proposed entrepreneurship education funding for community colleges and historically black colleges and universities), summarized previous scholarship on entrepreneurship programs in American community colleges and synthesized survey data collected from 40 community colleges located in major urban population centers. Among the report s key finding were: 1) most community college entrepreneurship education programs are administered as non-credit, continuing education opportunities, 2) several of the programs focus on fostering entrepreneurship among particular demographic groups (e.g., women, African Americans), 3) most community college entrepreneurial education programs are collaborative ventures that involve public as well as private support, 4) community colleges entrepreneurship instructors are typically experienced entrepreneurs and business managers with little or no formal pedagogical training, and 5) participating institutions rarely assess the impact or effectiveness of entrepreneurial education programs. In addition to this initial report, the Center for the Study of Community Colleges also prepared two highly informative reports on the status of sixteen community college entrepreneurship programs funded through the Kauffman Foundation Jumpstart project, a grant program focused on providing entrepreneurship training to African Americans, Hispanics, Native Americans, and women (Cohen, Brawer, Kozeracki, 1998, 2000). In addition to chronicling the development of innovative community college entrepreneurship programs, the Jumpstart reports also highlight the diversity of instructional methods, curricular content, and collaborative partnerships that characterize community college entrepreneurship training. Given the small sample size of community colleges represented in the Center s original 1994 report and two subsequent Jumpstart reports, additional empirical research conducted on a national scale is essential for constructing a more accurate and comprehensive portrait of community college entrepreneurship education. 13

14 In 2004 Elizabeth Hagan released the results of a comprehensive survey of for-credit entrepreneurship education offerings in American community colleges. Her research findings, gleaned from an extensive review of more than 1,000 community college web sites and the analysis of survey data collected from 171 community college entrepreneurship education program directors, offers tremendous insight into the diverse formats, curricula, and instructional methods that characterize community college entrepreneurship education. In addition, Hagan also examined the influence of institutional mission, geographic location, and faculty characteristics on entrepreneurship program growth and decline. Hagan s significant findings include survey results which reveal that 73 out of 426 participating institutions (17%) offer entrepreneurship or small business management degree programs, 131 (31%) award entrepreneurship certificates, 176 (41%) offer three or more courses in small business or entrepreneurship, 64 (15%) offer only one course, and 41 (9%) do not currently offer a creditbearing entrepreneurship courses. Survey responses also revealed that the primary and secondary reasons given for the establishment of community college entrepreneurship programs were community-related (30% combined) and economic-related (16% combined). Only 8% of the participating institutions identified student-driven interest, demand or need as the primary or secondary reason driving the development of entrepreneurship and small business management offerings. With respect to instructional methods utilized in for-credit community college entrepreneurship courses, Hagan surprisingly asserts, action and experiential learning methods are not apparent in the results of the survey (p. 76). Fifty out of Hagan s 122 survey respondents reported always using lectures in their community college entrepreneurship courses. Hagan qualifies this finding with additional survey results that reveal, although the lecture method is 14

15 dominant, the respondents also indicated that other methods, especially the use of computers both on site and in Distance Learning is beginning to become more important (p. 77) as twentyone percent of the respondents report always or very frequently using computers in instruction and twenty-six schools reported offering computer-based distance learning programs in entrepreneurship and small business management. Hagan summarizes the implications of this data with the assertion, when it comes to methodology, it appears that community college instructors are somewhat traditional in their reliance on the lecture method of instruction, despite research that indicates that the adult learner prefers to be involved in the learning experience, not preached to (p. 100). In addition to program format and content, Hagan was also interested in learning more about community college entrepreneurship faculty, specifically their personal experience with entrepreneurship and small business management. Hagan reports, the 171 community college representatives who responded to the author s survey reported that more than 52% of the fulltime instructors and more than 43% of the adjunct instructors have owned a business. In fact 29% of full-time faculty members and 34% of part-time adjuncts currently own a business (p. 81). Lastly, Hagan analyzed survey responses with the intention of identifying what influence, if any, institutional mission, geographic location, or instructor characteristics had on the establishment and growth of community college entrepreneurship and small business management programs. A careful review of the data revealed no significant relationship between any of these factors and program growth. According to Hagan, the primary outcome of the research is a determination that small business and entrepreneurship programs are as diverse as the communities and institutions that house them. They come into existence, grow, or decline 15

16 and are characterized by factors that are more expansive than attitude, geography, or instructor characteristics. The diversity and trend toward establishment of new programs suggests that future research about entrepreneurship education is needed (p. 2). Hagan s (2004) national survey of for-credit community college entrepreneurship education represents an important contribution to the entrepreneurship education scholarship. The survey and research findings described below build on and extend Hagan s work by providing a comprehensive review of non-credit entrepreneurship education provided by American community colleges. Reviewed together, these two empirical studies offer a through and insightful portrait on that national status of community college entrepreneurship education. Research Design Entrepreneurship Education Defined Despite the emergence of consensus on the economic significance of entrepreneurialism, scholars have not yet reached agreement on a common set of definitions for entrepreneurialism, small business management, and entrepreneurship education (see, Hagan 2004 for a concise summary of diverse definitions). A frequent topic of discussion in the relevant literature is whether or not entrepreneurship and small business management should be treated as conceptually distinct constructs or combined in the formulation of a comprehensive definition of entrepreneurship education that spans the business life cycle from creation to maintenance to decline or transfer (Gartner & Vesper, 1997; Gorman, Hanlon & King, 1997). Although it is relatively easy to identify conceptual distinctions between entrepreneurship and small business management for example, Hagan (2004) asserts that it is clear that small business management is about running small businesses and that we can loosely define the overall field of entrepreneurship as the creation of new business enterprises (p. 20) research informed by 16

17 intuitive logic and real world practice tends to adopt a comprehensive definition of entrepreneurship education that includes both new business creation as well as ongoing maintenance. Accordingly, this survey of non-credit community college entrepreneurship education employs Katz s (2003) all-inclusive definition of entrepreneurship education as a collection of academic disciplines and specialties including entrepreneurship, new venture creation, entrepreneurial finance, small business, family business, free enterprise, private enterprise, high-technology business, new product development microenterprise development, applied economic development, professional practice studies, women s entrepreneurship, minority entrepreneurship, and ethnic entrepreneurship (p. 284). Given this definition, the terms entrepreneurship and small business management education will be used interchangeably in this report unless otherwise noted. Research Sample Survey respondents were recruited to participate in this project via a two-phase invitation process. In the first phase of the project, introductory s were sent to 1192 community college presidents and chancellors listed in the 2004 Higher Education Directory. The outlined the objectives of the study and requested that the president or chancellor provide the research team with the names and contact information of the institutional representatives who could speak most knowledgeably about the college s non-credit entrepreneurship education offerings. Two follow-up recruitment s and one postal mailing were sent to nonresponding community college leaders. Of the 1192 community colleges contacted in the first phase of the project, 45 withdrew from the study because they did not currently offer non-credit entrepreneurship education and 380 institutions provided the name of at least one college representative knowledgeable about the 17

18 institution s non-credit entrepreneurship offerings. Seventy-one institutions provided multiple institutional contacts resulting in the creation of an institutional contact database with 457 individual records. Please see Table 1 for a summary of the research sample and response rate information. Table 1: Research Sample and Response Rate Summary Phase 1 Phase 2 Survey Summary Institutions Persons Institutions Persons Institutions Persons Total Removed as 14 duplicate Positive Response* Does Not Offer Non-Credit Entrepreneurship Education** No Response *** 10*** 955 Response Rate 36% 50% 45% 95% 19% * Positive response numbers listed for Phase 1 and Phase 2 are the number of individuals/institutions that moved forward to the next phase of the study. The positive response numbers reported in the Survey and Summary columns are the number of institutions that reported offering non-credit entrepreneurship education. ** Includes those institutions/individuals that selected to withdraw from study prior to completing the survey due to the absence of non-credit entrepreneurship education at their college. *** Incomplete surveys that were not analyzed. In the second phase of the recruitment process, these 457 institutional contacts were invited via to complete an on-line survey of the college s non-credit entrepreneurship and small business management offerings. Again, two follow-up s were sent to non-responding institutional contacts. Of the 457 individuals invited to participate in the study, eight withdrew from the study because their college does not currently offer non-credit entrepreneurship education and 198 submitted surveys (representing 184 different institutions). Given the data presented above, response rates can be calculated for each phase of the study s recruitment process. In Phase I (contact with 1192 community college presidents and 18

19 chancellors), 425 institutions 1 (36%) responded to our request for information. In Phase II (survey invitations sent to 457 individuals at 380 different institutions), 206 individuals 2 (45%) responded representing 184 different institutions. In summary, the project collected data from 227 community colleges 3, representing 19% of the 1192 institutions initially contacted. Non-Respondent Survey In the interest of augmenting the survey findings presented below, the research team also conducted a non-respondent survey. Rather than seeking to identify significant differences between participating institutions and non-participants, the non-respondent survey was designed to develop an informed estimate of the number of American community colleges engaging in non-credit entrepreneurship and small business management education. After determining the number of non-respondent institutions in the first phase of recruitment (n=722) 4, a five percent sample (n=36) was randomly selected for follow-up. The sample included 32 public community colleges, 3 private community colleges, and 1 tribal community college. A web search was conducted with follow-up s and phone calls as necessary to assess the status of entrepreneurship and small business education at each institution. It was determined that 19 (53%) of the institutions in the non-respondent survey sample offer some sort of non-credit entrepreneurship or small business education while 17 (47%) institutions do not. Based on these non-respondent survey findings, it can be estimated that 53% of the non-responding community 1 Includes the 380 institutions that responded with the names of individuals knowledgeable about the college s noncredit entrepreneurship offerings as well as the 45 institutions that indicated they do not currently offer non-credit entrepreneurship education. 2 Again, includes both the 198 survey respondents as well as the 8 individuals who indicated their college does not offer non-credit entrepreneurship education. 3 Includes the 174 institutions that submitted complete surveys as well as the 53 institutions that reported offering no non-credit community college entrepreneurship education. 4 Calculated by subtracting from the original research sample (1192 community colleges) the 380 institutions that responded with the names of individuals knowledgeable about the college s non-credit entrepreneurship offerings, the 45 institutional responses indicating no current non-credit entrepreneurship education offerings, as well as 45 institutions who requested to be withdrawn from the study. 19

20 colleges offer some form of non-credit entrepreneurship education with a ninety-five percent confidence range of 37% to 69%. Although this approximation is slightly lower than Hagan s (2004) assertion that 60% of American community colleges offer for-credit entrepreneurship and small business management education, both estimates clearly underscore the important role of community colleges in preparing the next generation of American entrepreneurs. Survey Instrument The development of the survey instrument (see Appendix A) was a collaborative process informed by the research team s extensive review of extant literature on entrepreneurship education and community college non-credit programs. In addition to gathering data that would add depth to our current understanding of community college involvement in entrepreneurship and small business management education (Center for the Study of Community Colleges, 1994; Cohen, Brawer, & Kozeracki, 1998, 2000; Hagan, 2004), the survey instrument was also designed with the intention of collecting information that would address perceived gaps in previous research on the topic (e.g., entrepreneurship education funding, assessment criteria, external partnerships). To ensure the survey instrument accurately reflected the wide-range of practices taken up by non-credit entrepreneurial education programs, a pilot test was conducted in the winter of Respondents were recruited to participate in this initial pilot study via a three-phase invitation process. Invitations to participate in the pilot survey were sent via to a total of forty randomly selected institutional contacts. Of those forty, nine responded affirmatively, netting eight completed survey responses. Upon completion of the pilot survey, follow-up phone interviews were conducted using a protocol drafted by the research team (see Appendix B). The purpose of these follow-up 20

21 interviews was to solicit specific feedback from pilot respondents on topics related to content language and terminology, relevance and appropriateness of content questions, technical reliability and ease, as well as to garner feedback on the look and feel of the survey instrument. Feedback generated through this two-phase process was used to refine the final survey instrument for later dissemination. This included substantive changes to the presentation of specific questions as well as incorporation of additional questions of interest to entrepreneurial program administrators and practitioners. The final survey consisted of 20 questions divided into five sections: 1) institutional information, 2) program information, 3) administration and funding, 4) students, and 5) program assessment. The survey was administered online and participants were provided with the option of completing the survey in multiple sittings. Based on feedback gathered from the pilot test, it is estimated that the survey took approximately 20 minutes to complete. Data Analysis Upon a preliminary review of the survey responses, it was determined that fourteen community colleges were represented in the final survey sample by two different respondents (i.e., as noted in the discussion of the research sample, 198 individuals submitted survey data representing 184 different community colleges). Although this was not a surprising finding given that the community college presidents were provided an opportunity to submit more than one institutional contact for follow-up communication regarding their college s non-credit entrepreneurship and small business management offerings, the research team determined that analysis of the data at the institutional level rather than the individual respondent level would yield findings of greater utility. It was thus necessary to identify the primary institutional respondent for each of the community colleges represented more than once in the survey and 21

22 remove from the database the responses of the secondary contact. Those individuals who selfidentified as the person most responsible for the administration of the college s non-credit entrepreneurship and small business management offerings were selected as the primary institutional respondent. In the case that both institutional contacts self-identified as the primary program administrator, the selection decision was based on the self-reporting of time allocated to administrative responsibilities (i.e., the individual with a higher percentage of time allocated to non-credit entrepreneurship and small business management administration was identified as the primary respondent). In addition to eliminating the survey responses of fourteen secondary institutional contacts, ten additional respondents were removed from the final survey database once it was determined that these individuals had started the survey but not submitted responses beyond confirming their contact information. The removal of these ten incomplete surveys resulted in a final database of responses from 174 individuals representing 174 different community colleges. 5 Although included in the final database, a number of respondents skipped individual items in the process of completing the survey (perhaps due to a lack of information or the item s irrelevance for their particular institution). To account for these missing response items yet retain the maximum number of survey respondents, missing cases were excluded from analysis on an item-by-item basis. The number of valid responses (N) included in the analysis of each survey item is reported in the discussion of key findings. 5 Of the 174 institutions included in the final database, 169 (97%) were public institutions, three institutions identified as independent non-profit, one institution indicated religious affiliation and one was a tribal college. This institutional breakdown by governance structure was not surprising given that 90 percent of our original sample (1192 community colleges) were public institutions. 22

23 Findings & Discussion To begin the discussion of survey findings, we offer a brief snapshot of the survey respondents and provide summary data concerning the number of participating institutions currently engaged in non-credit entrepreneurship and small business management education. Given that the recruitment process for this study involved extending invitations to those individuals previously identified by their college president as the person most responsible for the institution s non-credit entrepreneurship or small business management educational offerings, it is not surprising to learn that 93% of individuals (n=162) responding to the survey indicate that their college currently offers some form of non-credit entrepreneurship or small business management education while only 7% (12 respondents) report that their institution has no offerings in this area. Given that subsequent survey questions focused exclusively on the institution s non-credit entrepreneurship and small business management offerings, the 12 respondents who did not report current involvement in non-credit entrepreneurship or small business management education were immediately directed to the end of the survey and therefore are not included in subsequent findings. In addition to the 12 institutions that reported via the survey offering no non-credit entrepreneurship or small business management education, 53 additional community colleges selected to withdraw from the study prior to completing the survey due to the absence of noncredit entrepreneurship or small business management education at their institution 6. Although not represented in subsequent findings discussed in this report (due to the fact that these institutions did not submit completed surveys), the research team did include these institutions in 6 These 53 institutions communicated the status of their non-credit entrepreneurship offerings via direct communication with the project director. 23

24 the count of project respondents (see Table 1) given that the colleges did communicate the status of their non-credit entrepreneurship and small business management offerings. As a result of combining the program status information of these 53 institutions with the survey data collected from 174 community colleges, it was determined that 71% of the community colleges that participated in this research project (162 out of 227 respondents) offer some form of non-credit entrepreneurship or small business management education. Of the 160 respondents who reported involvement in non-credit entrepreneurship or small business management education 7, 19% (n=31) offer only small business management programs, 5% (n=8) provide only non-credit entrepreneurship education, and 76% (n=121) report their institutions offer both non-credit entrepreneurship and small business management education (see Figure 1). This high degree of overlap underscores the inextricable connection between the skills and knowledge essential for launching and managing successful business enterprises and supports the continuation of research efforts and instructional activities that span the business life cycle (e.g., start-up, maintenance, growth, and decline/transfer) rather than arbitrarily focus on one particular stage. Additional survey findings concerning the format and content of these community college non-credit entrepreneurship and small business management educational offerings are presented later in this report. 7 Two respondents did not respond to this survey question however subsequent survey answers indicate that their institution does indeed offer non-credit entrepreneurship or small business management education. Although not included in the analysis for this particular survey item, these two institutions are included as positive responses in the Survey and Summary columns of Table 1 as well as included in the finding on the number of respondents that offer non-credit entrepreneurship and small business management education. 24

25 Figure 1: Non-Credit Entrepreneurship & Small Business Management Offerings (N=160) 5% 19% Non-Credit Entrepreneurship Only (n=8) Non-Credit Small Business Mgt.Only (n=31) 76% Both Non-Credit Entrepreneurship & Small Business Mgt.(n=121) In the interest of examining the relationship between non-credit and for-credit entrepreneurship education in American community colleges, survey respondents were asked to report the status of credit-bearing entrepreneurship and small business management coursework on their campus. As Figure 2 illustrates, the overwhelming majority of participating institutions (76% or n=118) offer both credit and non-credit entrepreneurship and small business management education. The documentation of a large overlap in academic and non-credit entrepreneurship education serves to highlight potential avenues of collaboration and underscores the increasingly prominent role community colleges play in cultivating American entrepreneurship. 25

26 Figure 2: Credit Coursework in Entrepreneurship & Small Business Management (N=155) No (n=37) 24% Yes (n=118) 76% With respect to the professional roles and responsibilities of the survey respondents themselves, 94% of the respondents indicated they were the person most responsible for the administration of their institution s non-credit entrepreneurship and small business management offerings. Although useful as a means of establishing validity for the survey results presented below, this finding is not surprising given the intentional two-phase recruitment process described above. A second measure of the respondents involvement in non-credit entrepreneurship and small business management education is the percentage of time dedicated to the administration of these programs. Although 94% of respondents identify as the person most responsible for the administration of their college s non-credit entrepreneurship and small business management education offerings, 51% (n=83) report spending less than a quarter of their time fulfilling these administrative duties. On the other end of the spectrum, 30 respondents (18%) report allocating more than seventy-five percent of their professional time to the administration of non-credit entrepreneurship and small business management education. Figure 3 presents a visual summary of the time allocation data. 26

27 Figure 3: Percentage of Time Allocated to Administration of Non-Credit Entrepreneurship & Small Business Management Education (N=165) 9% 18% 3% 51% 0 (n=5) 1-25% (n=83) 26-50% (n=32) 51-75% (n=15) % (n=30) 19% This disparity in allocation of administrative time can be explained by examining the respondents professional titles, which range from Vice President of Community Education to Director of the Entrepreneurial Studies Institute. As expected, those individuals who hold seniorlevel administrative positions which cut across non-credit programs (e.g., Vice President for Continuing Education) report dedicating less time to the administration of non-credit entrepreneurship education programs in comparison to those respondents who hold mid-level administrative positions as program directors or coordinators. Table 2 summarizes the average time allocated according to the four most popular professional titles of survey respondents. Table 2: Percentage of Time Allocated to Administration of Non-Credit Entrepreneurship & Small Business Management Offerings by Professional Title (N=164) Average % of Time Allocated n Director 79 45% Program Coordinator/Manager/Associate or Assistant Director 26 41% Dean or Associate/Assistant Dean 42 33% Vice President or Associate/Assistant Vice President 17 18% Although this survey did not ask respondents to provide a detailed list of the professional tasks associated with their involvement in non-credit entrepreneurship education, the following discussion of survey findings pertaining to the administration and funding of non-credit 27